'Natural Born' Issue for Ted Cruz Is Not Settled and Not Going Away

NBC News ^ | 01/18/2016 | Pete Williams

[SeekAndFind]

While the nation's legal scholars differ over the exact meaning of the Constitution's requirement that a person must be a "natural born citizen" to become president, they're unanimous in saying Ted Cruz is wrong about an important point.

"As a legal matter, the question is quite straightforward and settled law," Cruz has said. "People will continue to make political noise about it, but as a legal matter it is quite straightforward.

In fact, the experts say, it is neither settled nor straightforward.

It's not settled -- because the Constitution does not define "natural born," a phrase that appears in the nation's founding document only once.

And though the federal courts have chewed on it from time to time, the U.S. Supreme Court has never officially said what it means.

It's not straightforward -- because at the time the Constitution was written there were different ideas about what the phrase meant and competing legal theories about where the power to confer citizenship came from.

The meaning of the term is so unsettled that scores of constitutional experts have been writing about it in the weeks since Donald Trump made it an issue in the 2016 campaign.

[Dstorm]

We sure have a lot of Posters that have been staying at a Holiday Inn Express lately

[Cold Heat]

so, you just gainsay with baseless denials.

So here is another...

Ted Cruz was deemed a citizen by virtue of the conditions of his birth. And he did not require any naturalization. That is in essence the definition of natural born whether you like it or not...

[Cold Heat]

Yeah....including myself I suppose....

But I must keep my little grey cells engaged or they dry up...

[Cboldt]

There is a supreme court case with a birth in Italy to a US citizen mother and an Italian father, under the same law that Cruz is covered by.

Would it be legitimate to substitute Cruz's name for that plaintiff's name? Both being US citizens at birth, of that there is no doubt or disagreement.

Or is it necessary to have that case again, with Cruz's name in there? That results in the precedent being pointless.

[Cold Heat]

You remember what we used to the legal advisors in the latrine?

[Cboldt]

SCOTUS handled a case that fits the fact patern of Cruz, in 1971, which is about a year after Ted Cruz was born.

No need to invoke Wong Kim Ark and the anchor babies. That's a different subject, doesn't fit Cruz at all.

[Cold Heat]

If I recall, that case was a situation where it appeared to me that the woman did not qualify to pass on a natural born status.

It also read as if she knew this and tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the court. Was that SCOTUS or the appellate court?

In any case, I saw it and dismissed it as not relevant to cruz..If I see it again, I’ll take another gander at it..

[Cboldt]

-- If I recall, that case was a situation where it appeared to me that the woman did not qualify to pass on a natural born status. --

You recall wrong. Plaintiff was a full fleged citizen at birth by operation of an Act of Congress.

-- In any case, I saw it and dismissed it as not relevant to cruz..If I see it again, I'll take another gander at it. --

Don't waste your time.

[Cboldt]

I notice my first reply was misleading. That was unintentional. Substitute this:

-- If I recall, that case was a situation where it appeared to me that the woman did not qualify to pass on a natural born status. --

The plaintiff, as Cruz, got citizenship at birth. In other words, as far as being "qualified," the mothers are equivalent, no different. In both cases, the child inherited the citizenship of the mother.

To say the mothers were passing natural born status to the child assumes the conclusion.

[r_barton]

A new invention, stereo spam.

[cynwoody]

Many made the case here about Obama.

They had the case wrong on Obama, both on the facts and on the law.

Obama is unqualified because he's not an American in his own mind, not because he's not Natural Born. He is. But the Constitution doesn't cover that case. It was up to the Sheeple to can Obama, and they FAILED!

Now they ignore the Constitution for Cruz.

Nope.

Both Cruz and Obama are NBC. One is American in his own mind, and the other is not. But the Constitution doesn't mention mental state!

The birfer morons exemplify the old saying, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." They got it wrong with Obama (to no effect, except laughter (out of court!) and derision). Now, they find it necessary to be consistently wrong about Cruz!

[Yosemitest]

Let us remember ...

"You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept Communism outright.
But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism
until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism.
We won’t have to fight you;
we’ll so weaken your economy
that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands. "


Nikita Kruschev, Former Soviet Premier

[Cold Heat]

I have no f’n idea what case you are citing...so I was trying to be polite.

I did see a case about a Italian woman but I don’t recall that it was SCOTUS.

The one SCOTUS case decided with a very strong dissent was Belli...;sp...

In that case, 1971 IIRC, they screwed up frankly, and created a third class of citizenship. They also blew the call on what jurisdiction means in the 14th IMO...

I don’t think anyone pays much attention to it and they seem to wish it had not occurred.

If SCOTUS were to take another case, I think it would be one that reverses Belli. It’s hilarious because the petitioner asked the court to decide about the requirements to retain citizenship insofar as time spent living in the US. He was miffed that the requirement existed and though it unconstitutional.

The court not only ruled against him, they struck down the PRECEDENT where a child born to a citizen parent in a foreign country was a citizen by birth and natural born as long as time in country was satisfied.

But to your chagrin, I suppose, this occurred after ted was born, and lends even more credence to his claim of natural born citizenship. it does this because they cite it, and then create a third class of citizen by negating it.

It does not apply as Cruz was born in 1970. On top of that it’s one of the worst cases SCOTUS has ever screwed up. IMO

[Cold Heat]

Yeah, he called it right.

He sure was not a stupid man. in fact, He was a quite a fan of the US.....

Played the role very well.

[Gene Eric]

Cruz’ birth right is not settled, by Global Warming is.

Screw the MSM. It’s the Country’s greatest threat.

[Cold Heat]

I did not invent it....so I can’t take credit.

[Cold Heat]

No, that's not what I meant. There is a time limitation where the mother in this case must be of majority age, 21 at birth, and must have spent the previous 14 years in the US. IIRC..

After 1971, it's quite possible they used the belli case to rule on it. In that case, even if she qualified, the child would be deemed a naturalized citizen and not a natural born.

If I understand the belli case correctly and if it has not been over-ruled or over written since. That is also assuming I understand what the woman's case was about, since I have not read it.

[Cboldt]

-- If SCOTUS were to take another case, I think it would be one that reverses Belli --

That's already accomplished, because none of the statutes that grant citizenship condition it on US residency of the child born, as the law Bellei was born under, did.

I can tell by the way you describe the case and related precedents that your grasp of the law is marginal. You sir, are qualified to be a judge!

[Cold Heat]

You sir, are qualified to be a judge!

Now I don't care what anyone says, that's pretty funny!

I took a couple minutes and went back over our original posts.I did not catch it originally but the case in 1971 that you are using, is indeed the same one I am referencing. It is Belli.

Read it and you will see where they cite the law that they are negating, and that is the law that says, Ted Cruz's mother transferred her status to ted at birth and that it was the law when he was born.

Now I don't know about you, but to me, this argument is over.

[Dstorm]

What was the case about?